Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

You can dip your hands into a bowl of non-Newtonian fluid but if you are to punch it, it goes hard all of a sudden and is more like a solid than anything else. What is it about a non-Newtonian fluid that makes it go hard when having a force exerted on it? How does it go from being more like a liquid to a solid in such a short amount of time? Does it change its state as soon as the force has made contact with it?

Answers:There are two answers at the stack exchange site. (Edited for brevity.)1) . . . at some point the spacing between the grains becomes less than the size of a grain. At this point, when you try apply a large force to suspension the starch grains bump into each other and lock together to form a framework. The water in the suspension now has to flow through the small pores in the starch grain "framework" and this requires a lot of force. Hence you can stand on the suspension for a moment. If the apply a small force the water/starch grains move slowly and this gives time for the starch grains to slide around between each other so they will flow.

2) Imagine a velocity gradient in the fluid. Then grains in one layer of the fluid will have to "roll over" particles in another layer of the fluid, colliding with each other as they do so. The steeper the velocity gradient, the more the fluid will tend to "dilate" in the direction normal to the gradient. But once the dilation effect gets sufficiently large, the water's surface tension provides a confining force that resists further dilation. This makes it much harder to maintain the velocity gradient and so the viscosity goes way up.

3) Here is a third explanation from phys.org (it also has videos to demonstrate the phenomena):https://phys.org/news/2012-07-duo-non-n ... mpact.html. . . they found that the tiny particles that are normally suspended in the liquid are suddenly jammed together when impacted from above, creating a cone like shape inside the liquid that is dense enough to be described as a temporary solid; as it just as quickly dissolves back to its original state.

Discussion:What do you think is the best explanation and why?

Is it possible that all three of these explanations harbor a fundamental error? If so, what?

So, after reading the above post, which of these three do you consider the best explanation:

1) The starch grains bump into each other and lock together to form a framework. The water in the suspension now has to flow through the small pores in the starch grain "framework" and this requires a lot of force.

2) Grains in one layer of the fluid have to "roll over" particles in another layer of the fluid, colliding with each other as they do so. The steeper the velocity gradient, the more the fluid will tend to "dilate" in the direction normal to the gradient. Once the dilation effect gets sufficiently large, the water's surface tension provides a confining force that resists further dilation.

3) Tiny particles that are normally suspended in the liquid are suddenly jammed together when impacted from above, creating a cone like shape inside the liquid that is dense enough to be described as a temporary solid.

4) None of the above.

For me the best answer is #4. But if I was obligated to chose between #1 through #3 I would chose #2 because it at least addresses the right answer.

The right answer is that a three dimensional form of surface tension is created in the fluid when force is applied. Specifically, when force is applied grains of starch actually get between some of the water molecules and force the breaking of ‘weak’ hydrogen bonds simultaneously creating ‘strong’ hydrogen bonds—like air brakes.

To get a better conceptualization of what I mean by this phrase “like air brakes,” I suggest reading the excerpts below and following the links to get a better understanding context of these excerpts.

This notion that H bonds are switches that inherently neutralize other H bond(s) in their vicinity and that the breaking of the H bond, thereby, reactivates these other H bond(s)—like air brakes—was a supposition I developed after I became more fully cognizant of the weak/strong dichotomy. Long before I decided to put pen to paper on all of this and even after I began converting it all to ones and zeros, I would occasionally, come across somebody describing the hydrogen bonding of H2O and I noticed a dichotomy. (It is, essentially, the same dichotomy that was mentioned, briefly, above [ladder of lies].) Sometimes people talked about H bonds and the force that underlies it, H2O polarity, as being strong. Sometimes people talked of them being weak. The strength of H bonds, for example, explained the high boiling point of H2O or the hardness of ice, they would say. The weakness of H bonds, on the other hand, explained the extremely low viscosity (high fluidity) of liquid water and ease by which it evaporates/sublimates. So which is it? Are H bonds strong or are they weak? The literature on H bonding seemed to suggest the existence of weak bonds and strong bonds, but otherwise seemed arcane, confused and completely unhelpful. So I just kind of reverse engineered the understanding that I discussed above. It just seemed to fit the facts. Water molecules were both weak and strong. And H bonds themselves were the switch thereof. But it was not a normal switch, it was some kind of reverse switch—kind of like air brakes. (Not the kind in cartoons. The kind in buses and trains.)

If someone were to take an accounting of the molecules in the atmosphere and enumerated the number of molecules at any point in time that are experiencing or participating in wind-shear and they compared that number to the number of molecules in the atmosphere that were not participating in wind-shear they would find that wind-shear comprises an incredibly small part of our atmosphere. My guess is one tenth of one percent, give or take an order of magnitude. This might bring one to dismiss it as inconsequential. But that would be a mistake. As was indicated previously, it is especially important to be cognizant of the fact that along these boundaries where large bodies of air meet there exists conditional factors that don’t exist anywhere else in the atmosphere: molecules directly impacting each other in a highly directional manner along a usually flat or somewhat flat plane and often over long distances and/or wide areas, sometimes spanning hundreds or even thousands of miles. I conjectured that moist/dry wind-shear would cause the microdroplets along the moist layer to be repeatedly impacted with side-glancing impacts and that would cause them to spin and, well, as they spun centrifugal forces would cause them to elongate into chains of H2O molecules—polymers or threads of H2O—spinning rapidly end over end. This would maximize the surface area of these H2O microdroplets. And, theoretically, this would also turn up the dial on H2O surface tension.

Comment by James McGinn:H2O has surface tension. It is literally a hard phase of H2O. As its name suggests, surface tension occurs on the surface of liquid water. So, think about that, a solid exists on the surface of liquid water.

Now consider this: if you can maximize the surface of liquid water in three dimensions you can create a 3 dimensional form of H2O surface tension. When force is applied to the mixture the grains of corn starch are forced between water molecules creating an internal, three dimensional surface. And so, corn starch is not providing the structural strength. Corn starch is providing the surface. The tensional forces that make the substance hard are provided by the water molecules. And it is based on the same (heretofore unexplained) principle that causes surface tension of liquid water.

BTW, this understanding provides us an alternative hypothesis for ice which is currently thought to be a result of a lattice. This new understanding suggests that the lattice hypothesis is mistaken and the reason ice is hard has nothing to do with it turning into a lattice but, instead, has to do with factors that create an internal surface in the body of water.

I am a scientist who will soon be revealing my solution to the anomalies of H2O. Here is a link to a meetup in the SF bay area that will begin to resolve all of the long standing mysteries of H2O's anomalies:Resolving the Anomalies of H2O / James McGinnhttps://www.meetup.com/Resolving-the-An ... 246928935/

jimmcginn wrote:... So, think about that, a solid exists on the surface of liquid water....

An imaginary solid.

Take a good look at the geometries of configurations for 1 through 5 water molecule combinations. They are all 'unbalanced' transitional states.Try to transcend those mis-informed conceptions of covalent and hydrogen "bondings", and look at the the much more massive Nucleons as well.Remember, water is a matter-analog for electricity.`

Good point. Any molecule with externally protruding, inherently polar, hydrogen atoms can be a polymer by way of hydrogen bonding, including starch and H2O molecules. But starch polymers are more permanent in that starch molecules are not prone to forming additional hydrogen bonds that neutralize the polarity that maintains the bonds. Water can/does. As described in the previous post on this thread, H2O molecules can only be polymerized under conditions that limit or restrict more comprehensive hydrogen bonding, as occurs along a surface and, with non-Newtonian fluids, as occurs when starch molecules come between H2O molecules when force is applied.

The same phenomena--polymerization of H2O--happens in a more dramatic manner along wind shear boundaries as a result of the spinning of nanodroplets into hard, polarity activated polymers of H2O. The sheath of a tornado, for example, is comprised of billions or trillions of these rapidly spinning, polarity activated polymers of H2O per cubic centimeter. The resulting plasma is what gives the sheath of a tornado structural strength. And the conservation of angular momentum is what prevents them from immediately reforming polarity neutralizing hydrogen bonds. And this is why the sheath of a tornado (or any atmospheric vortice) is much more persistent than these non-Newtonian fluids which, as you can see, lose their structural strength as soon as the force is discontinued.

jimmcginn wrote:... So, think about that, a solid exists on the surface of liquid water....

An imaginary solid.

Take a good look at the geometries of configurations for 1 through 5 water molecule combinations. They are all 'unbalanced' transitional states.Try to transcend those mis-informed conceptions of covalent and hydrogen "bondings", and look at the the much more massive Nucleons as well.Remember, water is a matter-analog for electricity.`

Very few people can tell the difference between what they believe and what they understand. That means the world is full of people that think they understand certain notions but actually only believe these notions. Typically these people make the conceptual error of looking to crowd to determine truth. But what they don't understand is that everybody in the crowd is doing the same thing they are doing. So what you end up with collective stupidity.

The crowd tends to accept as true many notions that are actually nonsense. Most people don't have the critical thinking skill to recognize the difference between what they believe and what they genuinely understand. The only way to get through to these people is to put them on the spot and try to get them to explain what they claim they understand. They will come up with all kinds of increasingly absurd excuses for why they can't explain what they believe they understand. When they have exhausted all excuses they ultimately come back to the crowd.

The crowd tends to believe stupid things because the crowd tends to conform to the lowest common denominator of what is easiest to believe.

jimmcginn wrote:... So, think about that, a solid exists on the surface of liquid water....

An imaginary solid.

Take a good look at the geometries of configurations for 1 through 5 water molecule combinations. They are all 'unbalanced' transitional states.Try to transcend those mis-informed conceptions of covalent and hydrogen "bondings", and look at the the much more massive Nucleons as well.Remember, water is a matter-analog for electricity.`

Very few people can tell the difference between what they believe and what they understand. ...........The crowd tends to believe stupid things because the crowd tends to conform to the lowest common denominator of what is easiest to believe.

And apparently you are one of that crowd who still cling to the century-old belief that molecules "share" electrons. That without even knowing what is as an electron.

Lots and lots of catchy words piled up around a subject may impress the acolytes, and even convince your own self of things quite plausible, but also quite untrue. It is a favorite practice of mainstream science writers, and it works for the publishers as well.However the piling up of all those learn-ed sounding words does not mean that you actually understand the physics of water,or even the mechanics of molecular affinities, i.e. "bondings".

jimmcginn wrote:... So, think about that, a solid exists on the surface of liquid water....

An imaginary solid.

Take a good look at the geometries of configurations for 1 through 5 water molecule combinations. They are all 'unbalanced' transitional states.Try to transcend those mis-informed conceptions of covalent and hydrogen "bondings", and look at the the much more massive Nucleons as well.Remember, water is a matter-analog for electricity.`

Very few people can tell the difference between what they believe and what they understand. ...........The crowd tends to believe stupid things because the crowd tends to conform to the lowest common denominator of what is easiest to believe.

And apparently you are one of that crowd who still cling to the century-old belief that molecules "share" electrons. That without even knowing what is as an electron.

Lots and lots of catchy words piled up around a subject may impress the acolytes, and even convince your own self of things quite plausible, but also quite untrue. It is a favorite practice of mainstream science writers, and it works for the publishers as well.However the piling up of all those learn-ed sounding words does not mean that you actually understand the physics of water,or even the mechanics of molecular affinities, i.e. "bondings".

`

Science forums on the internet tend to be populated by people with low self-esteem because it is so easy to create the illusion that they possess some deep understanding above and beyond that of people with average intelligence. You can't explain your deep understanding because, in fact, you don't actually possess a deep understanding. What you actually have is a deep belief. And you lack the ability to distinguish between what you understand and what you believe. I'm not even going to ask you what it is you think you understand because I know that you will never answer the question. Instead you will make some grandiose statement insinuating that I am not intelligent enough to understand the depth of your knowledge. The fact is that if you had some deep understanding you would have told us by now.

If you ever do come down off your high horse and develop your thinking in a form that is presentable to those of us with average intelligence I suggest you start your own thread. I think the experience might help you get a better understanding of the difference between what you believe you understand and what you actually understand.

Are you frustrated by your inability to dispute my explanation for the sudden appearance and disappearance of the structural strength that is evident (upthread) in the mixture of corn starch and water? (As simple Yes or No will suffice.)

In an effort avoid devolving into ad hominem it would behoove you to divulge your understanding of polymers and specifically how the phenomenon of starch polymerization is frustrating you in your inability to dispute your own explanation for the sudden appearance and disappearance of the structural strength that is evident (upthread) in the mixture of corn starch and water? (A simple Yes or No will NOT suffice.)

Maol wrote:In an effort avoid devolving into ad hominem it would behoove you to divulge your understanding of polymers and specifically how the phenomenon of starch polymerization is frustrating you in your inability to dispute your own explanation for the sudden appearance and disappearance of the structural strength that is evident (upthread) in the mixture of corn starch and water? (A simple Yes or No will NOT suffice.)

Thanks for the suggestion. But I don't have any interest in disputing your imagination. Maybe see if you can formulate an alternative hypothesis and I will reconsider.